“Play-to-Earn” and Bullshit Jobs

Post by alsetmusic » Wed, Dec 29, 2021, 4:23 PM UTC

danShumway wrote: post #170

58x14 wrote: post #32

In the late 2000s, as a teenager, I was gifted a Runescape account. This account had level 80+ woodcutting, allowing one to chop magic trees - which would produce the most expensive lumber in the game. It took a staggering number of real hours to achieve this skill level, we're talking several hundred hours minimum. At some point I had realized that there were different sketchy websites that would buy and sell the in…

I know a lot of people have fond memories of this kind of thing, but from a designer perspective, is it good that a game is so boring that players are willing to pay real-world money to skip parts of it? Runescape set up a system that was so grind-heavy that players broke server rules and wrote automated scripts to grind for them, and other players gave them money to do that. Because the minute-to-minute gameplay of…

Post by rank0 » Wed, Dec 29, 2021, 4:37 PM UTC

shkkmo wrote: post #631

rank0 wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree here. Instead of calling it “tax avoidance” let’s just talk about reducing your tax burden as much as possible. This is the prudent move for any individual or tax paying entity. Taking advantage of your roth, 401k, homestead exemption, writing off losses, etc… absolutely provides value to the tax payer. The value is literally more money for the tax payer who can now further participate in the economy. The…

You seem to have entirely missed the point. > let’s just talk about reducing your tax burden as much as possible For the purposes of the discussion, it is irrelevant if the overall tax burden should be raised or lowered. Given any target level of tax burden, it is inefficient to meet that tax burden by requiring large amounts of regulatory compliance by tax payers. If you can make tax rules simpler and easier to comp…

Post by rank0 » Wed, Dec 29, 2021, 4:45 PM UTC

lmm wrote: post #554

rank0 wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess we just have a fundamental disagreement. I argue that the increase in savings and therefore money spent participating in the economy is inherently valueable. In addition companies are less likely to fail, and can continue to generate value. Individuals have a bigger safety net and can be more productive for society. You already touched on the fact that government has reduced burden for social services. Govern…

> I argue that the increase in savings and therefore money spent participating in the economy is inherently valueable. > In addition companies are less likely to fail, and can continue to generate value. Individuals have a bigger safety net and can be more productive for society. You already touched on the fact that government has reduced burden for social services. It's zero-sum though - you've increased individuals…

Post by toomanydoubts » Wed, Dec 29, 2021, 5:19 PM UTC

imtringued wrote: post #567

toomanydoubts wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that different at all from fiat currencies? Every electronic transaction you make, like credit card or money transfers, has fees. Central banks have to keep pumping money into the economy so we can have the same nominal amount of cash in the system(albeit with lower value, because inflation). So, my question is, is fiat currency cashflow positive? How?

We devalue currency by 2% per year so people have an incentive to work = keep pumping. That work creates goods and services in the process. The problem with Bitcoin is that if it goes up in value the additional time spent mining is ultimately a waste of time.

Post by mannanj » Wed, Dec 29, 2021, 5:25 PM UTC

acdha wrote: post #622

ctchocula wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gold has a usecase for jewelry, manufacturing electronics, dentistry and glassmaking. Yet not even the sum of these applications can justify its market cap of $11.73T, so the difference must come from speculation. I suspect the same is true for Bitcoin.

The difference is that gold has useful applications which act as a floor for pricing and moderate fluctuations. Gold bugs can still lose their shirts speculating but a normal buyer knows the value will never be zero. Bitcoin is in contrast a pure fiat currency with very weak backing. Nobody has a need for it which can’t be satisfied at least as well by alternatives and it requires a very expensive always-on network t…